<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<pre wrap="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/16/33">> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/16/33</a>
The article only deals with Open Source market dominance not 'Free'. All references to 'free' in that article are about royalty-free software not the 'four freedoms'.
Open Source I believe is vulnerable to this kind of threat because the idea is that it give developers freedom to innovate using a royalty free license.
OS is positioned much more closely to the capitalist demand for radical innovation and thus is already exposed to capitalist ideas of political and social legitimacy.
Free Software is not exclusionary AFAIK I cannot think of any case where proprietary software has been refused entry to a market because of it, but am open to studying examples of that happening if anyone can find examples?
> * How can we oppose the argument that publicly financed software released as Free Software is anticompetitive?
In the same way competitive market actors defend vendor lock-ins and rent seeking and all the other market failures, resist market-led policy priorities which have already become over-represented. Real competition after all, is (in some) sense anti-competitive if we are imagining a 'pro-competitive' product produces a perfect market. It's a wrong question that anchors responses in wrong-thinking about markets and about free software.
> * What can we bring up on the other hand in favor of publishing as Free Software from a competitive point of view?
(except the usual non-dependencies)
Why is this a demand? This sounds like an apology for Open Source, not the basis for promoting free software to me. 'Competition' is a market-led paradigm that deforms software development in favor of proprietorial interests, it's making a vice out of a virtue...
</pre>
</body>
</html>